The other evening we were invited to attend an outreach meeting.  Located in a place that has no evangelical influence for a 15 mile radius, we were encouraged to hear that the monthly service was drawing around 30 people.  But when we walked in the door, it became clear to me that we had stepped into a different time.  It was this nation’s interpretation of a good, old-fashioned tent revival.  And it couldn’t be more out of place.

At first I thought that maybe I was being too judgmental or too quick to think, “Hey, church isn’t done this way anymore”.  God forbid that I was trying to push current ministry or worship trend for trend’s sake.  Seriously, that not me.  But then I realised that it wasn’t that they weren’t modern, it was that they were speaking in the voice of another generation (the oldest generation, mind you), yet they hoped to engage the young generation, most of whom have never heard the Gospel.  Ever.  What I was witnessing was a generation gap.

As we were introduced to people before the service, it became obvious that the room was filled with people further afield from the general village or area (actually, there were people from the next county in attendance).  Perhaps three or four lived in the village.  It also became apparent that all attendees were believers and church attenders in their home area.  With the average age of 70 (and I’m being really, really polite here), we were some of the only “youngsters” in attendance, and, since we’re already saved, I believe that there were no non-Christians in the room. 

It was a typical warm summer’s evening.  Outside the meeting I could hear the sounds of life going by: loud cars, music, shouting.  I couldn’t help but wonder that if any of the people on the street below somehow found their way upstairs to our group, would they understand any of what was being said and why?  And I’m not referring to the work of the Holy Spirit illuminating that which seems foolish to the world.  I’m talking about people speaking in the service in “Thee”s and “Thou”s, repeating a rote benediction without providing the words for those who wouldn’t know it, showing up right as the service starts and scampering off quickly afterwards back to the next county.  Though I understand it through exposure as a younger child, it seemed to me that an outsider today would easily interpret this as some group of religious people who descend on the village monthly without warning or interaction for about an hour and a half once a month to recite religious jargon that is unnecessarily difficult to understand.

When talking to some of the people after the service, we found that many had adult Christian children around our age who, while active in church, none of whom were in attendance that night.  I’ve met a lot of Christians within my generation who are truly engaged in witnessing, evangelism, social justice, etc., so it would be unfair to say that the Younger Christians just don’t care.  I know they do.  Although they may understand the older generation’s way of “doing church”, they’re not participatory, and I believe it’s because they know that the unchurched of their generation would find it difficult to navigate the lexicon and actions of the church of yesteryear.

Because I’m not the person that just spouts, “Modernise, man! Get with the times!”  I realised that my generation and the even younger generation will be in this boat one day.  What I witnessed the other night was, at one time, cutting edge, modern, perhaps even considered scandalous at some point due to the presence of an organ (an electric one, mind you).  These had been the avant garde and trailblazers who spoke to their generation in a way that they were familiar, who had the same point of reference as the non-Christians around them.  Yet now we watch our spiritual ancestors, cock our heads and say, “Huh?”  Of course, it works both ways.

The generation gap has been a quandary for years, both in and outside the church, and this post isn’t even going to attempt to address the issue in relation to church worship or practise in an established body of believers.  However, when you’re looking at what’s effectively missions (it doesn’t matter to me whether it’s on the homefront or in a foreign country), I fear that we’re checking our brains at the door and falling into comfortable patterns of “how it’s always been done”, even if that’s coming from a younger, more modern perspective.  If we can’t communicate effectively to the people we live amongst in favour of a dogmatic approach to practise, then what’s the point?  The answer isn’t to modernise or even revert back to the old ways; it’s to engage our brains, consult the leading of the Holy Spirit, and hold outreaches in a way that engages people in the language that they know.

The outreaches have continued on since I visited, and just recently I heard that attendance has unfortunately dropped down to just 10 people.  I’m not a “ministry justified by numbers” advocate, yet I fear that those ten are not part of the village or even the area.  People in that town don’t even understand what the outreaches are about, so they don’t attend—and can you blame them?

Related posts:

1. Disappointment Avoidance
2. Lottie Moon or Ex-Pimps: A Young Missionary Sums It Up
3. Doing Ministry at Arm’s Distance

Of all the lessons that foreign missions ministry has taught me (and continues to do so), the top of the list has to be that we are shaped by our location and culture more than we realise.  Most anyone who has lived in a foreign country for a decent stretch of time would probably recognise how true this is.

When you meet a fellow Christian from another country, there are some great similarities and kinship that’s experienced through our Family in Christ.  It’s difficult to describe to others, but there is an understanding of what it’s like to press on with life as a Christian in this fallen world.  They know what you’ve seen, and usually understand how fellow Christians experience life.

Then there’s the point that you realise that their Christian experience has differed than yours.  Their “favourite songs” are ones you’ve never heard, or methodology in worship services is, well, just different.  Nothing wrong or sacrilegious, but jarringly different to your exposure.

Who and what you are surrounded by is bound to influence your perception and choices.  Even when I’ve worked with missionaries who are firmly resolved to not lose one bit of their “American” accent, actions or attitude, over time even they begin to start using phrases here that wouldn’t ever be used “back home”.  They don’t notice it, and can become alarmed when informed of this, yet for all their determination to resist, the phrase or action creeps back in.  Bear in mind that these are things that are completely inoffensive both here and to Americans, nor would they be anything wrong in God’s view at all.  They hear it used over and over again, or perhaps people here understand them better when they say that phrase.  It just happens, even if they purposely try to stop.

The anger and fear that I’ve witnessed when a missionary realises that they’ve changed is striking.  It appears to them as if they’ve lost a part of their identity, a part of what defines them, and, to put it bluntly, the change freaks them out.  I know that we personally act and speak differently since being in the field, and not a few of our friends and family have politely (sometimes sternly) reminded us that we’re “still American” or should “act/talk more American”.  All this has done is reinforce in me that first and foremost, my identity is in Christ and my citizenship is in Heaven.

As Christians, Christ and His ways, His laws, His thoughts are to be our starting point.  This knowledge I’ve always believed, but now in the situation of changing cultures this wisdom is moving from my head to my heart.  The more we’re around someone or something, the more we become like them.  We humans can’t help it.  I believe it’s why the potter/clay analogy is used; we are impressionable beings, able to take shape according to the influence of another.

Once Jesus is established as our example, all other identities are up to where He places us.  Those identities may alter according to our circumstances, but it doesn’t negate our place in Christ.  Whether I act more or less “American” doesn’t diminish the fact of where I was born or lived most of my life.  It doesn’t mean any ill will towards my American family or friends, either.  It just means that I live somewhere else now that differently shapes my experience of life.

You’ve probably already guessed that I would invoke Paul’s entreaty to “become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.” (1 Corinthians 9:22-23).  But it’s the phrase that summarises Chapter 9 in my Bible that says it all: Paul Surrenders His Rights.  If I need to change language, actions or appearance (within God’s law and direction in the Bible) to reach people in another culture for Christ, so be it.  I only need to be concerned with God’s direction in my life, and nothing more.

Related posts:

1. The “Just Be Yourself” Paradox
2. The Search Terms I Get…
3. Doing Ministry at Arm’s Distance

Recently, a woman in my church sought counsel on a possible marriage.  On the surface, it sounded pretty standard-issue stuff: they’d met on an Internet dating site a couple of months ago and, both being young and impatient, wish to hurry things along and get married quickly.  The woman was concerned as she felt he was pressing things really quickly, including premarital intimacy.  I’m sure you already know what needed to be said considering Biblical standards, and it was.  However, when you bring their respective cultures into the picture, there’s more to the story.

She, being from Eastern Europe, was viewing this as a transaction.  After answering a few questions, it became clear that she had essentially the same attitude of a mail-order bride: I’m trying to escape bad living conditions.  There also seemed to be a bit of loneliness adding to the situation, plus a cultural attitude from her country that women at her age who were married with children were much more revered and respected than a single woman.

He, being from an African nation, was also viewing this as a transaction.  In my mission field, sham marriages to avoid deportation are not illegal, and he made it clear that he needed her help to stay here.  When she described some of his actions and reactions to her, a quick view of his country’s cultural norms on the (mis)treatment of women showed me that she had no idea what she might be getting into.

The cultural norm for my mission field would be that people pair up for love, not convenience nor by arrangement.  They would not usually have dire living conditions to escape.  However, the immediate family would have a lot of say and participation in the match and subsequent relationship.  People here care, to an unhealthy extreme, about what others think.

And my background from the States would encourage me to feel that people should be more independent about considering cultural norms and their relationships, yet discourage a marriage of convenience.

Despite the fact that I have researched and trained for my mission field here in Western Europe, there’s such a mix of varied groups represented here that it’s a virtual minefield to understand how to convey guidance and understand how that might be misinterpreted due to a person’s cultural background.  With a bit more research, I was able to at least understand why their respective life situations would make a sham marriage seem like a way out.

The marriage is off—for now.  She appeared to receive the Biblical counsel I provided, yet I could see the desperation in her eyes.  I pray that God will help us all as our incredibly different cultures collide.

Related posts:

1. The “Just Be Yourself” Paradox
2. The Double Life of The Missionary
3. In the Culture of Now

My church elder was talking about the latest conference he attended.  As he described the speakers and the books he bought, his face lit up when he remembered something.  “They’ve got this brand-new approach that they’re trying now, and it shows a lot of promise.  People in some areas are really excited about it.  Have you heard of a Coffee Shop Ministry?”

Sigh.  Yes.  Ten years ago in the States.

I’ve been involved in ministry and church planting now for almost half of my life.  It feels like the whole time has been peppered with the next new book, angle, approach, tool, technique, item or worship style.  Every idea has the aura of “this is the thing that will really work”.  And it seems like more conferences are popping up every year, each with their own subtle twist or perspective on how to “do church” the best way to get the best results.  I fear I’m at the point of programme overload.

I’ve come to this point in my life for two reasons: 1) the sheer quantity of programmes over a long period of time are too much to process, and 2) seeing ministry in a different cultural context has made me realise how culture-specific virtually all of these approaches seem to be.  I have no doubt that, for each of the methods or techniques available in ministry today, there is a place or people group that have responded really well and have become Christians through this.   Praise God!  I’m honestly glad that this has happened in that situation.  But I’m startled by the attitude that most Christians have: “If it worked there, it’ll work here!”

Perhaps I’m jaded because I’m a missionary in a first-world country.  Many assume that the transition would be seemless and people here would respond to a specific type of outreach that worked in the States, or even within another “socially-similar” country.  I’ve had well-meaning people forward books and programmes to me for considerational use here, yet when I read the literature through my “Western European Culture” eyes, the language would too-easily be interpreted as individualistic, boastful, or sometimes confusing or even vulgar due to slight changes within the English usage here.  Churches here with the best of intentions have used some of these programmes, and I have witnessed the backlash from the nationals.

It gives me the impression that ministry, whether local or foreign missionary, has become an industrialised commodity.  Grab the package of books/DVDs, send it over, get results, rinse, repeat.  Hey, it’s in the same language, what’s to change?  Yet even with translated literature, a lack of cultural understanding could really impede rather than impact a people group for Christ.

I’ve seen people hide behind the supply chain in order to avoid contact.  One man would get so excited about how many “Starter Kits” could be sent out for Bible studies, yet he was reluctant to even step foot in a Bible study himself.  Doing ministry at arm’s distance was good enough for him, so don’t ask him to go any further.  While distribution participation is certainly a valid part of ministry, if we use it in place of interaction with others or even God then perhaps a rethink of priorities is in order.

And I’ve known so many pastors that have a conference booked practically every month, travelling all over their country.  Even Christians in my mission field expect us to go to any and every Christian conference available here, as if it were un-Christian not to go!  One youth minister I know in the States was beginning to show signs of “sign-up-itis” early in his ministry, and his senior pastor wisely gave him guidance on this.  To go to any conference, the youth pastor needed to be able articulate why he needed to go and what he expected to learn.  Upon return, he was to submit three things he learned from the conference and planned to implement in his ministry.  A year from the conference, the senior pastor wanted to review the three things with my friend to see how, if any, worked and judge from there if further training or conferences were necessary at that time.  To some this may sound a little harsh, but I see it as a pragmatic approach to discerning the appropriate time to attend conferences and to gauge the effectiveness in that specific ministry.

To be clear, I’m not knocking the concepts of conferences, programmes, media or literature.  If one of these methods is working in your particular ministry situation (and by working I mean bringing people into a brand-new relationship with Christ, not just attracting the Christians from the church across town), that’s a wonderful thing.  Keep it up!  But discernment is needed when presented with the overload of so many options in ministry.  Would this work in my culture?  How many conferences do I need to attend?

So why the big “sigh” earlier?  I’m noticing that the (very small) evangelical presence in my mission field is mimicking the trends of American Christian culture—at a lag of about 10-15 years.  I’ve had a lot of these moments with my nationals; as they enthusiastically explain this “new” way of ministry to me, I’m silently thinking, “Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt.  That ‘new way’ was already abandoned and they’re now on to something else.” And, in his eagerness to be just like the other, larger, urban-centred churches here, my elder is forgetting that our church is located in a sparsely populated rural area.  The local farmers would not be comfortable in a slick hipster Starbucks wannabe, nor do they even prefer to drink coffee.

The funny thing is, most of the people in our church would feel more comfortable if we were replicating another programme or method that was used successfully in another church.  It’s almost like they see it as a form of easy math: method that filled a lot of seats at Wherever Church=filling a lot of seats at our church.  Instead, we’re going in a different direction with our outreach services, not utilising a lot of the typically accepted practises in modern ministry because most would be off-putting to the culture around us.  We feel it would get in the way of how we should present the Gospel to a suspicious people who see God as an angry landlord.  Will it work?  Are we going in the right direction?  Time will tell, but I know most see it as a gamble and a “tested method” as a sure bet.

Even though we have the internet and lighting-fast ways of communicating in the 21st century, Western Europe is oblivious to the fact that those at the vanguard of modern ministry in the States have questioned an over-reliance on programmes, instead suggesting a focus on training and encouraging people on reading their Bible, plus building relationships within the church and those around them.  I’d rather the evangelicals here ignore the order of the last ten years of stateside trends and just skip to the realisation that making disciples of Christ requires genuine relationship building, and that takes time.  I don’t think there’s a trendy programme for that.  Yet.

No related posts.

Early in our fact-finding trips to our mission field, we kept getting the sense that the nationals held a bit of a reservation about working with us.  They were certainly friendly and accommodating, but their comments and facial expressions held a barely discernible air of skepticism.  We knew that their interactions with a large majority of American missionaries had gone very poorly for a number of reasons, so we figured they were understandably hesitant to interact with us.

Fast-forward to about six months into living in the mission field, and the real reason for their hesitancy began to crystalise in my mind.  We had been here long enough to watch several short-term mission teams funnel in and out of the church, plus there were several other long-term missionaries attached to help.  Watching the interactions from the sidelines, I began to see what the nationals saw: most missionaries would only do ministry at arm’s distance.

This is going beyond the unfortunate handful of those with bad attitudes; actually, the majority were polite, respectful, and generally good people who were willing to help and work in many ways.  Yet even in the group of good-natured, well-intentioned people, there still existed a trace element of distance from the nationals.

Many of the missionaries lived near each other, and, in the case of singles, roomed with other missionaries, usually from the same country or stateside church.  Breaks and leisure time were spent using various social media to keep up with a very large amount of friends and family back home; in fact, this more-than-daily updating often overrode events or tasks during ministry time.  Any external interactions or attendance at non-church events were with other missionaries, including dinners or “get togethers” that excluded nationals.  While there is nothing wrong with comradery amongst those with a shared background experience, the lack of deviation from it gave the clear indication that the missionaries were not interested in engaging the nationals in the day-to-day experience of living.

From my sociology studies, I recognise that this is typical behaviour for most immigrants.  Understandably, there is a common bond through nationality; even I’ve experienced a bit of comfort when talking with a fellow American about a situation only we could understand or remarking about how odd a custom in this mission field seems through our eyes.  It also follows that immigrants would want to stay close to other immigrants when they share a language unlike where they now live.  But I had expected missionaries to differ purposely from this behaviour for two reasons: 1) in this field, there is not a language barrier (well, there’s an accent and word definition barrier at times, but for the most part we are all speaking English), and 2) their reason for being here is to effectively spread the Gospel, unlike most immigrants who are here primarily to escape a dangerous situation in their homeland or to make money.

The message of Arm’s Distance Ministry is: I’m here to get a task done, and I’ll be friendly to you during this ministry time, but when it’s over I’d rather not interact with you.  I’ve seen this happen quite a bit in the States as well in both paid and volunteer ministry, so I don’t believe it’s just a foreign missionary issue.  It just becomes that much clearer in the mission field, perhaps because of two distinctly different cultures interacting.

Is it our phraseology?  The term “outreach”, usually used for a special attractional church event, implies that we are reaching out to a place that we ourselves are not actually in.  Is it our training?  I am aware of one mission agency (note: this does not imply that they are all this way) that required a large amount of the “Way of Salvation” witnessing per month.  Were this required in my situation, I’d have to confront strangers to “make the quota”, yet not only does relational (and slow-building) ministry work better here, street witnessing would get me ostracised from my small village.

Perhaps it’s the Western concept of compartmentalisation of our lives that shapes our definition of reaching out to others during “church events” or when ministry is scheduled to happen—but that stops when the prescribed time over.  Maybe the few months or years the missionaries were scheduled to spend in the mission field made developing relationships with nationals seem moot if they planned to return permanently to the States.  Western Europeans can be much slower to “warm up” than most Americans are used to.  Whatever the reason was, it gave the impression to the nationals that the missionaries were primarily concerned with completing ministry tasks and nothing more.

While I had been pondering this concept for a while, it was an article linked from the How God Messed Up My Religion blog that pushed me to write this post.  The article recounts several lessons from a recent short-term mission trip to Africa.  Their team chose to stay at the orphanage they were helping, and a teacher from the orphanage told her, “people come to help, but they don’t really want to be with us and live our life with us.”  While it’s understandable that Westernised Christians would find it hard to live a week in third-world conditions, the sad reality is that the same sentence could easily be said by our Western European nationals today.

The word “missional” gets bandied about a lot these days, and it’s definition seems to be still forming.  As I understand it, the emphasis is on the body of believers acting like me, a foreign missionary, instead of a “Holy Huddle” in the church with the onus on the pastor as the “Hired Gun”.  I think it’s a great idea, but from what I’ve witnessed in the mission field, we’re sometimes not very good about being missional ourselves.  Whether it’s fear, or intimidation, or the fact that so few are encouraged to make missions, or a particular mission field, a lifelong (or at least open-ended) commitment, arm’s distance ministry can only go so far.  The nationals appear to understand this better than we do.

Related posts:

1. When The World Comes To Your Field
2. Pulling Your Hand Out of a Bucket
3. Staying Home For Christmas

The turn of the new year always gives us pause for reflection on the past and contemplation of the future, so the start of 2010 appears to be no different.  As I remember lessons learned over the past few years as a missionary, one theme keeps recurring: we are shaped by the environment in which we find ourselves, no matter how much we may resist.  And I have been very much influenced by my mission field’s culture which is an “in the moment” people group, something I like to call “The Culture of Now”.

Of course, the title is not indicative of a culture of wanting things or change to happen immediately (i.e., “I want it now”) but of a state of being in the moment, relishing the experience and not focussed solely on the future.  In an earlier cross-cultural course I had learned of the differences in such cultures, and I am grateful to have understood the technical differences before entering the mission field.

It was actually the change of decade that prompted me to take note of my personal attitude shift.  Reflecting on where I was (physically, spiritually, and emotionally) as 1999 slipped into 2000, I started to realise that I had been a much more agitated individual.  Always focussing on the next task, job, location, or goal, I wasn’t actually interacting in the moment.  Time with people, though often a pleasant thing, was seen as an obstacle to progress; because it was a necessity to interact with others, I felt at the time that it must be kept to a minimum.  While I would be present at an activity or function, mentally I was worlds away, going over tasks in my head or thinking constantly about what sequence of events needed to happen once I got out of the situation.

As I thought about how I enter a conversation now, I realised that my conversations of the past often centred on what accomplishments I planned for the near future, always networking and looking for that “next thing” that I could hitch my wagon to a star.  Essentially, The Present Situation was something to constantly aspire to get out of, and on to the next moment.  From my experience and recollection, it is a tiring way to live because it means there is no defined end in sight.

We had been well informed about our mission field’s cultural attitude, so we didn’t experience a huge shock when we arrived.  Things take longer, people move slower, and it’s just the way that it is here.  Our friend’s statement, “You’ll have loads of things to do, but if you get only one thing accomplished in a day, that’s considered amazing”, rang true and still does to this day.  But moving this information from knowledge to personal practice took much, much longer than we had anticipated.

Part of the reason it’s been so difficult is the fact that we still interact with our original culture, from funding supporters and churches to family members.  Firm plans and grand expectation of results are required from the American culture, sometimes even 5-10 years from now.  I’ll never forget a woman coming up to me after our fundraising presentation, where we had mentioned a minimum five-year commitment to this field.  “What will you do at the end of five years?”  she queried.  Taken aback, I mumbled something about we’d see what God laid on our hearts at that time.  “Would you return to America?” she pressed.  “Five years is so far away,” I said, “but if God wanted us to return at that time, we would.”

Her eyes lit up.  “Where will you live then?”  At this point I wasn’t sure where she was going with this or what I was supposed to say.  I mean, I’m putting all my energy into going on mission in a foreign country for a very extended (and open-ended) period of time; does anyone really know with certainty exactly what they will be doing in five years’ time?  “Um, I’m sure God will let us know where at that time,” I hastily replied, looking for anyone else to talk to.  She kept on with, “What will you do for work?  These are important things you have to plan for now!”  Yeah, I’ll just secure a job somewhere that they’re willing to wait five years (or longer) for me to return, though I’m not sure where that would be.  And, while I’m busy doing that, I’ll lock in a lease on some house that I won’t live in for at least five years, too.

I never got to say what I was thinking, which was, “Lady, would you just let me deal with the experience I’m in now before having to make firm decisions about the future?  I’m sure I’ll be a different person by then, and God doesn’t always share His plans for us that far into the future.”  Meanwhile, I’m not even five years into the mission, and I’m already dramatically different in my views and practise.

I fear that this monumental difference from the States’ forward-thinking/progress-focussed/instant gratification mindset is part of what makes it so difficult for American missionaries to stay long-term, but as I’ve changed I notice some unexpected benefits:

The only problems I see are two: 1) this way of life, if left unchecked, can lead to serious laziness; and 2) our Stateside supporters may struggle with a perception that we’re not doing enough or getting satisfactory results, though we’ve done our best to communicate the cultural (and spiritual) differences in ministry here.  Meanwhile, even in our “slowed-down” state, the nationals think we are a whirl of activity, going too fast and accomplishing things by leaps and bounds.

I fall back into my old habits every once in a while, and the discomfort I feel through it snaps me out of that future-thinking angst pretty quickly.  Entering the new decade gives me hope that I can better appreciate the present and enjoy the now.

Related posts:

1. You Said What?! The Importance of Context in Culture
2. The “Just Be Yourself” Paradox
3. I’m Not There: Why the Missionary Can’t Have It Both Ways

I know this video is a huge generalisation, but it answers the question people have asked about how Christians are regarded in Western Europe.  Unfortunately, it is a massive barrier to break down when attempting to establish relationships, and only time and consistency can erase this judgment by stereotype.

Related posts:

1. When The World Comes To Your Field

“Reverse Furlough, Part 1: The Good Stuff” is available here.

Yet, like all things, there are some not-so-great things to consider about the Reverse Furlough:
Adapting to Different Expectations
Some sponsors just wanted a “look-see” and really didn’t need much in-depth information.  Others wanted all the info, background and history we could provide.  One group was more motivated to do repair work on our building than anything else.  The difficult part of adapting was that it was almost impossible to tell what each of these groups wanted before they arrived, so we were learning on the fly as to what they wanted to see or experience.

Mission Field Also a Popular Tourist Destination
We didn’t realise with the first couple of guests how much this played into their expectation of the trip.  You start figuring out quickly who came here to actually see/do ministry and who came on a vacation under the guise of a “mission trip”.  Everyone seemed to suffer from the misconception that we were only engaged in ministry on Sunday for an hour, so we would certainly have the rest of the week to play tourist with them.  “What sights do you want to see?” they’d ask.  It was really, really hard not to have a snarky reply like, “This is your trip, not mine.  I’ve already seen [tourist attraction], and I don’t spend my days wanting to see it week after week.  I thought you were interested in ministry, not tourism.”  Because no one wanted to drive or rent a car over here, it fell to us to chauffeur people around which took a huge chunk out of our days.  I’m cool with people taking a couple of days out to see our country; just be upfront and tell us this, and don’t expect the entire “mission trip” to run like a tour package when you said you wanted to see/participate in ministry.

Costing Us More Than Planned
While a trip back to the States for a year would cost us considerably more cash, the earlier supporter visits quickly taught us to be upfront with our visitors about how much our budget could support them, too.  The food, electric, petrol and heating bills all increase when we’re accommodating a visitor and, while we welcome visitors, it’s necessary to plan for these increases, asking for assistance from the visitor if necessary. We had a supporter surprise us with a visit a year and a half ago, who hadn’t understood the exchange rate or the high cost of basic living here, so he attempted to get us to pay for everything.  We simply could not afford to do what he asked, and it ended up losing us his support.  Had we known he (and his group of five) were coming over, we could have communicated and planned much better.

Alternating Between Two Cultures at the Same Time
I’ve written before about the paradox of being part of two different cultures in “The Double Life of the Missionary”, but that referenced the separation between the two.  I currently live in one and am originally from the other.  What I wasn’t prepared for was the dissonance in having people from my former life in the States temporarily become part of my very different life here in the mission field.  There were times that my mind felt off-balance when I would hear a voice or see a face that I had last seen in the States; it was an odd state of confusion that felt like, “Wait, you’re not supposed to be here…where am I?”  Having to remember the American word for something or trying to explain cultural context to our American friends was much more difficult than I had anticipated.

Always a Potential “Loose Cannon”
We noticed that less-travelled individuals had a harder time adapting to the temporary change in surroundings.  It was with our unexpected supporter visit that we quickly learned why some visitors should not be immediately introduced to our nationals until we can evaluate the situation; he seemed intent on insulting anyone or anything that was unlike his way of life back in the States.  And I remember witnessing an American mission team that was working at another church here.  A man dressed in a garish rainbow-striped shirt and suspenders walked up to a national in the church and said in a slow, deep Southern drawl: “Ya know, y’all tawk funn-ay he-ah.”  I wish I was making this up, but I’m not.  Even though we better knew the supporters we hosted this year and spent time prepping them for better cultural sensitivity, there was always a fear in the back of our minds that they’d say something innocently outlandish and/or insulting to those we minister to—and it could kill our ministry in this area of the field.

Despite the potential problems, these Reverse Furloughs have strengthened our bond with most of those who visited this year.  Two of the pastors of supporting churches have not only committed to longer financial support but have been interested in greater interaction between their churches and ours, planning future mission trips in a couple of years and informing their congregation about the spiritual need in our mission field.  I believe everyone has left with a greater and more complete understanding of just what it is we do here and why it will take so long to see a harvest of souls in such a spiritually dark nation.  Praise God for their faithfulness to continue the journey with us!

Related posts:

1. Reverse Furlough, Part 1: The Good Stuff
2. I’m a Missionary, Not a Travel Agent
3. Reverse Culture Shock, Kid-Style

Kevin over at the “Life.Outpoured” blog talks about the importance of missionaries adapting (yet staying within God’s law) to the culture in which they minister, and it goes beyond clothing and acting.  He gives some great points to consider in “(Missionary) Etiquette 101″.  My favourite: “Begin to think like a citizen of heaven, not of a particular country.”

No related posts.

Childhood is hard enough when you have your original culture to contend with, but MKs (missionary kids) have an additional culture to adapt to, yet try to maintain friendships and relationships back “home”.  I can’t imagine the struggle at such a young age, but the blog “The Other Side of Missions” gives a good perspective on this struggle: “My Peculiar MKs”

Related posts:

1. A Blog Written From the MK Perspective
2. The Double Life of The Missionary